about what incentives there can be to FORCE the player to use all the characters in a roster and not always the same team. By "force" I mean in a creative/interesting way of course

I posted there an idea I had today:

An idea I had, but of course need a lot of testing/planning, is that your characters carry over damage/mana used for a certain amount of time.
For example, every time you lose HP, you can still heal etc, but after a fight depending on how much damage you sustained, your MAX HP is temporarily lowered by a %. This until you reach a specific checkpoint of the game.
This way, you might be forced to rotate the characters, a bit like in a soccer/sports game where players get tired if they "play" all the time.

That's just an idea for now and not sure I'll do it but seems interesting to me

Generally I like it, though make it transparent from the beginning on: I started both PS and Loren with a fixed party - both XP and equipment upgrades were mostly sank in 4 (PS) or 6 (Loren) members. If I had been aware of the PC+one specific char missions I would have played the game differently :)

The idea with tired characters would have solved this issue, as rotating the party would be introduced earlier.

What exactly would be the advantage of using all party members in a rotating way? How would this improve my having a fun time?

From the way my questions are phrased you can see I do not like the idea. Usually in a game like Loren where every char is defined I like some of them, I am neutral to others, and some I hate. Anything which forces me to use all of them in rotation would offend me.

I know, indeed is a very subjective thing. Personally when I play RPG I have my favorites as well, so I'm like you.
The easiest solution is probably to make them all level up the same with quests. Or even better, give a choice to the player, so the game can played however he/she wants

It could be interesting to be forced to adapt to different parties, e.g. a roster consisting of mostly melee fighters because all mages are still recovering. Normally I use one default tactic (whatever it is, but something like buff type 1, long range attack buff type 2, mass damage spell, close combat attack is typical) - regardless of the enemy [only if the default fails I try different options]. Probably my own fault, but fights get repetitive and boring in many RPGs. If I'm encouraged to rotate my chars this could be averted.

I don't like your idea. I still see myself having an A-team and a B-team no matter how I turn it. I guess that might be an improvement over always using the A-team, but... I don't like it.

Can't come up with anything myself right now though, everything involves some randomness factor which wouldn't cause me to swap members so much as it would cause me to reload.

Maybe something like your first idea but the recovery isn't based on this or that event, just x battles on the sideline. However can the concept altogether for the easier difficulties. Easy should be casual enough that you can just go with your six prettiest characters with their prettiest skills etc :P

renke_ wrote:It could be interesting to be forced to adapt to different parties, e.g. a roster consisting of mostly melee fighters because all mages are still recovering.

I can see your point of forcing the player to do different playstyles. But this would lead to having say three tanks, and rotating through them. And two healers, used alternativly. Which means: having a more or less balanced party where each position can be filled by one of x party members ... and still using the same tactic as always.

The deeper point is the difference between having a bunch of stats, and having a defined character (in the storytelling sense). If the chars are like "the useful buf guy" and the "less useful buf guy" for you, then it makes sense to force you to find out how to make best use of a party of "less useful" members. Or to learn when the B-team is enough, and when the A-Team is needed. However, if the game has a strong story (as some recent WW-games ) then the characters will cause emotions, likes and dislikes. Up to the point where I choose to use a second-rate fighter I like rather than the strongest but annoying one. Here forcing the player to use the hated ones may harm the gaming experience.

BTW: May I remind of my suggestion of making it possible that too many negative dialogues cause a party member to leave? (Balanced such that only deliberate offending could ever reach this far.)

Lonestar51 wrote:
BTW: May I remind of my suggestion of making it possible that too many negative dialogues cause a party member to leave? (Balanced such that only deliberate offending could ever reach this far.)

Yes for Roger Steel will work like that already. For Loren have yet to think since the game is already a lot complex because of number of party members, but will see if is possible

A major problem with LtAP though is that you nearly always have to use Loren and Saren/Elenor. Loren has pretty much only one role and given how unexciting the base warrior/thief trees are there isn't much diversity to be had with the PC either. When you always have to use those, you tend to build a party that complements them and that they complement.

I'm guessing you might have to use Shea and Althea like all the time in SotW too, but at least they are far more customizable.